DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (U.S. 2014/0114451).
Regarding claim 1, Kerr discloses a method for scoring a golf match play game between two teams of one or more players for a predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), the method comprising assigning a point total N for each hole, (fig. 14), playing a hole, keeping track of each players’ score and determining which of two teams has won, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049), repeating playing each hole and awarding points for each hole for the predetermined number of holes until all predetermined number of holes have been played, adding up total number of points accumulated on total predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), and declaring a winning team of the golf match based on the team scoring the most total points, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049).
Kerr is silent on disclosing determining a winner with the lowest score, however, the Examiner views this as an obvious limitation as Kerr discloses that determining the winner of a golf match based on the lowest score is the traditional method, (“the traditional stroke play where the goal is to have the lowest score”, par. 0091).
Kerr is also silent on disclosing awarding three-quarters of N points to winning team with lowest score, one- quarter of N points to losing team and one-half N points if the teams have identical low score, wherein the Examiner views as an obvious design choice since it is not disclosed that awarding three-quarter and one-quarter points solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Regarding claims 2 – 4, 6 – 8, 10 – 12, and 14 – 16, as stated the Examiner views the invention’s method of scoring as an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 5, Kerr discloses a method for scoring a golf match play game between two teams of one or more players for a predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), the method comprising assigning a point total N for each hole, (fig. 14), playing a hole, keeping track of each players’ score and determining which of two teams has won, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049), repeating playing each hole and awarding points for each hole for the predetermined number of holes until all predetermined number of holes have been played, adding up total number of points accumulated on total predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), and declaring a winning group based on the group scoring the most points by totaling together each of the team points of the group, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049).
As stated above, Kerr is silent on disclosing determining a winner with the lowest score, however, the Examiner views this as an obvious limitation as Kerr discloses that determining the winner of a golf match based on the lowest score is the traditional method, (“the traditional stroke play where the goal is to have the lowest score”, par. 0091).
Kerr is also silent on disclosing awarding three-quarters of N points to winning team with lowest score, one- quarter of N points to losing team and one-half N points if the teams have identical low score, wherein the Examiner views as an obvious design choice since it is not disclosed that awarding three-quarter and one-quarter points solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Regarding claim 9, Kerr discloses a method for scoring a golf match play game between two teams of one or more players for a predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), the method comprising assigning a point total N for each hole, (fig. 14), playing a hole, keeping track of each players’ score and determining which of two teams has won, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049), repeating playing each hole and awarding points for each hole for the predetermined number of holes until all predetermined number of holes have been played, adding up total number of points accumulated on total predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), and declaring a winning team of the golf match based on the team scoring the most total points, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049).
As stated above, Kerr is silent on disclosing determining a winner with the lowest score, however, the Examiner views this as an obvious limitation as Kerr discloses that determining the winner of a golf match based on the lowest score is the traditional method, (“the traditional stroke play where the goal is to have the lowest score”, par. 0091).
Kerr is also silent on disclosing awarding three-quarters of N points to winning team with lowest score, one- quarter of N points to losing team and one-half N points if the teams have identical low score, wherein the Examiner views as an obvious design choice since it is not disclosed that awarding three-quarter and one-quarter points solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Regarding claim 13, Kerr discloses a method for scoring a golf match play game between two teams of one or more players for a predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), the method comprising assigning a point total N for each hole, (fig. 14), playing a hole, keeping track of each players’ score and determining which of two teams has won, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049), repeating playing each hole and awarding points for each hole for the predetermined number of holes until all predetermined number of holes have been played, adding up total number of points accumulated on total predetermined number of holes, (fig. 20a), and declaring a winning group based on the group scoring the most points by totaling together each of the team points of the group, (“one exemplary tournament engine may create a tournament for each group of golf teams having an independent ranking at the end of an extended league of play for those golf teams”, par. 0049).
As stated above, Kerr is silent on disclosing determining a winner with the lowest score, however, the Examiner views this as an obvious limitation as Kerr discloses that determining the winner of a golf match based on the lowest score is the traditional method, (“the traditional stroke play where the goal is to have the lowest score”, par. 0091).
Kerr is also silent on disclosing awarding three-quarters of N points to winning team with lowest score, one- quarter of N points to losing team and one-half N points if the teams have identical low score, wherein the Examiner views as an obvious design choice since it is not disclosed that awarding three-quarter and one-quarter points solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method for scoring a golf match play game between two teams of one or two players for a predetermined number of holes, the method comprising: assigning a total point total N for each hole; playing a hole, keeping track of each players' score and determining which of two teams has won hole based on which player has lower individual score for the hole; awarding three-quarters of N points to winning team with lowest score, one- quarter of N points to losing team and one-half N points if the teams have identical low score; repeating playing each hole and awarding points for each hole for the predetermined number of holes until all predetermined number of holes have been played; adding up total number of points accumulated on total predetermined number of holes; and, declaring a winning team of the golf match based on the team scoring the most total points.
ii. The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as an interface, processor, memory, and display components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does not recite any additional elements, viewed as a whole, the current invention is indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715